The Abortion Question

[BengalHawk62]

(10-08-2015, 01:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, we're back to your hypothetical; I thought you were merely giving a general stance on Pro-Choice.

Nowhere did I say a rape victim should be required to keep the child.

Then you are Pro-Choice.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 01:59 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Then you are Pro-Choice.

The choice was forced upon the woman in your scenario. It wasn't her choice to participate in the activity.

Do you think those that want a child should be allowed to let the child to develop to maturity?

If so, then you are Pro-Life. Welcome.  

[djs7685]

(10-08-2015, 02:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The choice was forced upon the woman in your scenario. It wasn't her choice to participate in the activity.

Do you think those that want a child should be allowed to let the child to develop to maturity?

If so, then you are Pro-Life. Welcome.  

Logic is a bit flawed here.

Just because someone believes that a person should be allowed to let the child develop to maturity if they want a child, it doesn't mean that is the only option, so how does that make somebody "pro-life" as it's commonly defined??

[BengalHawk62]

(10-08-2015, 02:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The choice was forced upon the woman in your scenario. It wasn't her choice to participate in the activity.

Do you think those that want a child should be allowed to let the child to develop to maturity?

If so, then you are Pro-Life. Welcome.  

?????  I'm not sure I understand what you are saying? 

If I want a child, I should do everything in my power to help develop that child to maturity?  Yes, That's a true statement. 



I guess I'm pro life and pro choice then. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 02:08 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Logic is a bit flawed here.

Just because someone believes that a person should be allowed to let the child develop to maturity if they want a child, it doesn't mean that is the only option, so how does that make somebody "pro-life" as it's commonly defined??

But the fact that I don't feel someone that is raped should be forced to keep the baby makes me "pro-choice" as it's commonly defined isn't flawed logic?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-08-2015, 02:11 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: ?????  I'm not sure I understand what you are saying? 

If I want a child, I should do everything in my power to help develop that child to maturity?  Yes, That's a true statement. 



I guess I'm pro life and pro choice then. 

I like that, you don't have to be one or another.  It's a very personal issue that is not up to others to make for you.

This is just a message board, and people vehemently disagree with one another on the issue.  How about we just leave it up to the person it ultimately affects the most...the women that has to carry and care for the child if it's born.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 02:11 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: ?????  I'm not sure I understand what you are saying? 

If I want a child, I should do everything in my power to help develop that child to maturity?  Yes, That's a true statement. 



I guess I'm pro life and pro choice then. 

But, as they are "commonly defined" I'll bet you go with Pro-Choice, just as I go with Pro-Life. The are exceptions due to drastic conditions due to each stance.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 02:21 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: How about we just leave it up to the person it ultimately affects the most...the women that has to carry and care for the child if it's born.

That makes a nice Greeting Card; however, it does seem that your leaving out the person it truly effects the most.

[djs7685]

(10-08-2015, 02:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But the fact that I don't feel someone that is raped should be forced to keep the baby makes me "pro-choice" as it's commonly defined isn't flawed logic?

If you think there are situations where the woman should have a choice, then you're technically pro-choice, right?

I guess it's tough to throw out labels like pro-choice and pro-life since a lot of people fall somewhere in between the two sides. When people hear "pro-choice", they tend to think of the extremist view on that side, and same with the pro-lifers.

I think I just find it more believable to call somebody "pro-choice" that says "if you're raped, you should be able to choose whether you have the baby", opposed to calling somebody "pro-life" that says "you should be allowed to have your baby if you'd like to".

Both of the things you guys have said left it up to choice, so I don't know why you're thinking that I should have called out his logic and not yours, when his made at least some sense.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-08-2015, 02:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That makes a nice Greeting Card; however, it does seem that your leaving out the person it truly effects the most.

Of course that depends on when you consider an embryo a person or at what point you consider it a life.  Of course that's not even taking into to consideration how the woman got pregnant. 


All life is sacred eh...speaking of nice greeting cards...

[BengalHawk62]

(10-08-2015, 02:32 PM)djs7685 Wrote: If you think there are situations where the woman should have a choice, then you're technically pro-choice, right?

I guess it's tough to throw out labels like pro-choice and pro-life since a lot of people fall somewhere in between the two sides. When people hear "pro-choice", they tend to think of the extremist view on that side, and same with the pro-lifers.

I think I just find it more believable to call somebody "pro-choice" that says "if you're raped, you should be able to choose whether you have the baby", opposed to calling somebody "pro-life" that says "you should be allowed to have your baby if you'd like to".

Both of the things you guys have said left it up to choice, so I don't know why you're thinking that I should have called out his logic and not yours, when his made at least some sense.

I guess that's the point I was trying to get across. If you leave open some certain situations where a CHOICE can be made, you are Pro-Choice whether you want to admit it or not.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 02:33 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Of course that depends on when you consider an embryo a person or at what point you consider it a life.  Of course that's not even taking into to consideration how the woman got pregnant. 


All life is sacred eh...speaking of nice greeting cards...

Of course

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-08-2015, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Like I predicted about 420 posts ago: The pro-choice side just chooses to ignore science.

I'm your huckleberry.  I critiqued about 8 or 9 of the misleading quotes from your pro life website masquerading as a .edu last night. When I'm finished with the rest of the quotes you will be the first to know.  However, it takes time and effort.  I was busy building a bench this morning for the campsite my daughter and I are building, I just finished having lunch and visited the book fair with her, and now I'm probably going to play some Madden.  I'll get to your stupid bullshit in due time.  

Let me explain the difference between you and I when it comes to science.  Last December I had to take my national recertification board as a physician assistant again.  I started studying a year in advance.  On the three days of the week I worked, I tried to study at least 1-2 hours before and after work.  On the four days of the week I didn't work, I studied 8-12 hours.  Seven days a week.  I know poor philhos missed a Bengals game this season.  I can emphathize because I cancelled NFL Sunday Ticket last year so I wouldn't be tempted to watch the Bengals instead of studying.  So last year alone I spent between 1800-3200 hours studying for a single test.  In other words, I've studied more science in a single year for a single test than you have studied cumulatively over your entire lifetime.  (And I haven't even mentioned a single class as a biology major or as a PA student or any of the yearly CME I'm required to log.)  So rest assured I will get to your stupid bullshit which I'm sure you will ignore like you have done every other time I have explained "simple" biology to you.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 02:32 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Both of the things you guys have said left it up to choice, so I don't know why you're thinking that I should have called out his logic and not yours, when his made at least some sense.

Where did I say you should call out his logic and not mine?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-08-2015, 02:33 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Of course that depends on when you consider an embryo a person or at what point you consider it a life.  Of course that's not even taking into to consideration how the woman got pregnant. 


All life is sacred eh...speaking of nice greeting cards...

Eh.  Not necessarily.  If you're an Army Scout it's okay to kill.  The Bible says so.  Somewhere.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2015, 02:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm your huckleberry.  I critiqued about 8 or 9 of the misleading quotes from your pro life website masquerading as a .edu last night. When I'm finished with the rest of the quotes you will be the first to know.  However, it takes time and effort.  I was busy building a bench this morning for the campsite my daughter and I are building, I just finished having lunch and visited the book fair with her, and now I'm probably going to play some Madden.  I'll get to your stupid bullshit in due time.  

Let me explain the difference between you and I when it comes to science.  Last December I had to take my national recertification board as a physician assistant again.  I started studying a year in advance.  On the three days of the week I worked, I tried to study at least 1-2 hours before and after work.  On the four days of the week I didn't work, I studied 8-12 hours.  Seven days a week.  I know poor philhos missed a Bengals game this season.  I can emphathize because I cancelled NFL Sunday Ticket last year so I wouldn't be tempted to watch the Bengals instead of studying.  So last year alone I spent between 1800-3200 hours studying for a single test.  In other words, I've studied more science in a single year for a single test than you have studied cumulatively over your entire lifetime.  (And I haven't even mentioned a single class as a biology major or as a PA student or any of the yearly CME I'm required to log.)  So rest assured I will get to your stupid bullshit which I'm sure you will ignore like you have done every other time I have explained "simple" biology to you.

My website is not 'Pro-life" unless you consider Princeton.edu to be slanted toward pro-Life .

As you notice, I didn't quote myself; I quoted other sciency folk. They probably went to science school too. They most likely, just don't understand biology as well as you.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-08-2015, 02:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course

Not really though

[djs7685]

(10-08-2015, 02:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But the fact that I don't feel someone that is raped should be forced to keep the baby makes me "pro-choice" as it's commonly defined isn't flawed logic?

(10-08-2015, 02:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did I say you should call out his logic and not mine?

The above sort of questions why I didn't call out his logic. Maybe you just wanted me to call out his as well? Is that what you're saying or no?

You can just come out and say something instead of speaking in riddles as you like to do. I'm not really sure why I try holding a conversation with you anymore. It's always just stupid one liners or random questions instead of getting to the god damn point.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-08-2015, 02:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My website is not 'Pro-life" unless you consider Princeton.edu to be slanted toward pro-Life .

As you notice, I didn't quote myself; I quoted other sciency folk. They probably went to science school too. They most likely, just don't understand biology as well as you.

Then you need to vet your own source like I did.  It took less than 2 minutes.  It comes from this website . . . https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/

It has "prolife" in the web address for their homepage, homeboy.  From their home page and I quote, "Princeton Pro-Life is a student-run organization devoted to promoting a culture of life on campus and in the world beyond. We host speakers, sponsor conferences, write editorials, and coordinate with other campus organizations to raise awareness of the pro-life message."


It has nothing to do with Princeton's academic curriculum.  Basically, it is a student club.  They have already misled you to believe it isn't a pro-life organization, but that is exactly what they are.  



PS I don't know why I even bother explaining the science to you because you can't even recognize a pro-life organization when you quote a pro-life organization.

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2015, 02:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That makes a nice Greeting Card; however, it does seem that your leaving out the person it truly effects the most.

This is my problem with all of this, and the crux of my position, really. Why do some think, in this instance, that the mother does not take the child? That the mother does not have the best interests of the child at heart? As misguided as we may see them, why do some think that she is just completely disregarding the life inside of her? Why does the government, in this situation, know better than the people actually involved?

Each situation is different to a level that there is no law that could ever come close to taking into account every eventuality. It is not the place of the government to make that call. I want to decrease abortions so this topic becomes almost irrelavent. I want to increase education and access to family planning so that unwanted pregnancies become a thing of the past and the only ones we have to talk about are the exceptions that many make for the life of the mother, rape, and incest. But making a federal law to criminalize abortion is big government, it is infringing on the rights of the mothers, it would not likely be very effective in lowering the frequency at which abortions occur, and it would likely increase the frequency of deaths among pregnant women.